A BBC drama about a GM crop that goes wrong has come under fire from
some scientists who say it distorts the facts. But, asks co-writer Alan
Rusbridger, could the criticism have more to do with the interests of the
biotech industry?

Every so often, British intelligence officials do a tour of our universities
to drop a quiet word of advice about foreign nationals who want to enrol
on certain science courses. You would expect them to take a keen interest
in anyone studying nuclear fission. But more recently they have begun to
express concerns at, for instance, Libyans or Iraqis wanting to study plant
sciences. Did you know that? And do you find that knowledge reassuring,
alarming, alarmist or merely interesting?

You probably know that antiobiotic resistance in humans and animals
is causing great concern in the scientific, veterinary and medical communities.
Some doctors fear we are one drug away from a public health disaster. But
did you also know that biotech companies have been in the widespread habit
of using antibiotic resistance marker genes in plant trials? Reassured?
Alarmed? Interested?

Most of us do not spend our lives reading scientific journals or the
reports of parliamentary select committees on such matters. The latest
advances in biotechnology are way beyond our comprehension. The speed at
which things have moved since the first genetically modified plant was
approved for marketing in May 1994 is bewildering.

Most people, I suspect, have very mixed feelings about it all. Some
may hope, or believe, that these developments have the potential to feed
the world and, perhaps, save the world. Others may feel that it is all
happening without proper debate or democratic scrutiny, and that there
is at least the possibility that we are opening a Pandora's box which may
greatly harm the world. Some may even hold both these thoughts in their
heads simultaneously. I'm certainly in that camp. One day (coincidentally
while reading The Day of the Triffids to one of my daughters) it occurred
to me that between those two polarities ­ saving the world and harming
the world - there is great dramatic potential.

What would happen if something went seriously wrong with a GM crop trial?
We have in this country a prime minister who dismisses sceptics about the
new technologies as Luddites and a science minister with an extensive personal
and financial interest (held in trust) in biotechnology. The big biotech
and pharmaceutical companies are notoriously rich and powerful and, say
their critics, increasingly sophisticated in discrediting those who threaten
their vested interests.

On the other side, you have a green movement which, in the view of many
scientists and businessmen, plays fast and loose with the facts and which
will never concede the benefits of the new technologies. They may not have
the resources of the big companies and governments, but environmental pressure
groups have much credibility with the public and have learned to make formidable
use of the internet and email in order to get their point of view across.
In the middle you have the media, trying to make sense of a tidal wave
of information and disinformation.

All this struck us - my co-writer, Ronan Bennett, and me - as being
fertile ground for a television drama. We pitched the idea to the BBC and
some 18 months later - holidays, weekends and the odd late night of research
and writing - the scripts were ready.

We did not really expect any of the parties portrayed in the drama to
come out as cheer-leaders for Fields of Gold. Biotech companies, greens,
farmers, big pharma, government and media will all have reasons to dislike
some elements of it. But nothing quite prepared us for the orchestrated
pre-emptive strike on the series from some scientists.

The Science Media Centre - recently established with the laudable aim
of promoting un derstanding of science, although with up to 25% of
its funding from biotech and pharmaceutical companies - coordinated the
attack, lining up an array of sound bites ("makes Star Wars look like cinema
verite") and offering them to anyone "wanting a pop at the BBC/Guardian
in one go".

One or two newspapers were only too happy to oblige. Dr Mark Tester,
a Cambridge scientist who had read the original script, was given a starring
role in the subsequent coverage - mainly in the Daily Telegraph. An editorial
in that paper fulminated that "every single scientific premise on which
the drama is based is demonstrably false".

This was, as Roy Lodge, the sodden old hack in the drama would say,
bollocks.

It is safe to say that the leader writer - who seemed to be mysteriously
fixated with Ronan's views on Irish politics - has not spent much time
studying this area of science. His de haut en bas dismissal of the scientific
basis for the programme soon looked a bit silly.

The paper could not resist giving away the plot. I won't do that. But,
briefly, the chief area of controversy surrounds the question of whether
an antibiotic resistant gene introduced into wheat - along with a virulence
gene - could result in antibiotic resistant bacteria moving into the soil
and thence, or independently, to human beings.

Some scientific premises:

Are antibiotic resistance genes routinely introduced into GM crops?
Yes, they are. Are plenty of scientists worried about this? Yes.

Does VRSA - vacomycin resistant staphylococcus aurea - exist and is
its spread feared by the medical community? It does, and it is. In evidence
to the House of Lords select committee on science witnesses spoke of the
"catastrophe" we faced should this super bug become more common.

Do scientists accept the possibility of genetic material transferring
from crops to soil, humans or animals? As Tester himself puts it: some
do, some don't. An extremely eminent professor working in this area said
last week: "The truth is, we have an extremely poor understanding of how
genetic matter moves around in the natural or managed environment. Scientists
working with bacteria tend to be far more cautious than anyone else."

Some scientists are sceptical about the possibility of horizontal gene
transfer, if not outright dismissive. Others have no doubt that it occurs.

A 1999 letter from Mr N Tomlinson, a senior MAFF official stated: "there
is cause to be concerned about the problem of gene transfer to environmental
organisms. Such bacteria could also act as a gene pool that may interect
with human pathogens".

The letter attacked assumptions that only healthy adults might be exposed
to the threat. "Transfer of genes may pose a much more significant threat
to the very young, the elderly and those people who are immunocompromised"
and warned that, if exposed, it could have "much more serious consequences...
than healthy adults." The first people to fall ill in Fields of Gold are
the elderly.

A Defra spokesman said this week that he thought this advice had now
been overtaken by further research and that the likelihood was now "remote."
But, as Tomlinson's letter noted, "Given the huge amplification of resistance
genes implicit in the agricultural application... even rare events will
happen."

As last week's controversy rumbled on even Tester was forced to concede
that the central thesis of the drama was a possibility, even if he believes
it to be improbable. He could hardly do otherwise since his original memo
to the BBC stated that he had an open mind on the question. That memo went
much further in helpfully suggesting ways in which the material could be
made more dramatically plausible. It is difficult to go into further examples
without betraying the story. But the memo's emphasis was not that the science
was wrong, but that ways should be found to make it more explicit.

So what began with screaming headlines about "BBC lies" eventually fizzled
out with mumblings about what was dramatically plausible and whether drama
had the duty to be "responsible". It is not often that such a concerted
effort is made to destroy the credibility of a drama in advance. The question
is, why?

One answer is contained in the script itself. An awful lot hangs on
the outcome of the current trials in Britain and elsewhere of GM crops.
It is difficult to think of any other period in science when so much was
at stake.

At the most elevated level, pro-GM scientists and not a few politicians
would argue that the entire future of the human race depends on this technology.
They sincerely believe that, without biotechnology, the human race will
be incapable of feeding itself within a generation or two. At a more pragmatic
level, billions upon billions of dollars stand to be made or lost on this
technology. The last thing some of these businesses want is a searching
public debate. Since this is one of the themes of the drama it is not without
irony that some people have gone to such lengths to rubbish it in advance.

The second answer lies in the nature of drama itself. Because these
issues are so complex to grasp they are difficult to project journalistically.
Some editors chart an easy course in dubbing anything to do with GM produce
"Frankenfood". But the nitty-gritty business of trying to produce balanced
and detailed coverage of the science is often rather dull. It does not
often produce heated discussion around the water cooler.

A peak-time drama on BBC 1 is entirely different. If Fields of Gold
is making some people nervous, it will be because it has taken the bare
bones of the scientific predicament and projected it dramatically in a
way which will - if it succeeds - engage a mass audience and make them
question the issues behind it. That is an alarming prospect for those who
would rather have restricted this debate to a small elite. It explains
why Monsanto secured early copies of the drama and why people at the highest
levels of government are known to be anxious about the fall out. And it
explains why the Science Media Centre, extensively backed by the biotech
and pharmaceutical industries, mimicked some of the clumsiest spin techniques
of New Labour in trying to discredit it in advance.

Viewers will make up their own minds after seeing both programmes. As
a journalist straying for the first time from the printed word, it has
been a fascinating illustration of the power of drama, even in prospect.
And also a slightly dispiriting view of the willingness of one or two fellow
journalists to pursue their own agendas, or simply fall for the easy lure
of spin.

Still, it would be churlish not to be grateful for the publicity, including
3,000 words so far in the Telegraph alone. To be compared with Star Wars,
John Wyndham and The X-Files may not be quite what we had in mind, but
it may have the unintended consequence of making people actually tune in.

Fields of Gold is broadcast on BBC1 at 9.05pm on Saturday. The second
part follows on Sunday at the same time.

***

Saturday, 8 June, 9.05 - Fields of Gold - BBC 1 TV
"First in a new two-part conspiracy thriller starring Anna Friel. An
eager young photographer and a bitter tabloid hack are sent to investigate
mysterious deaths at a cottage hospital. But why is the new environment
minister keeping tabs on their every move? Concludes tomorrow at 9.05"

Sunday, 9 June, 12.30 - The Food Programme - BBC Radio 4
"Sheila Dillion investigates how US biotechnology companies are preparing
to launch a new offensive on the reluctant European market and examines
how far the GM debate has moved on" [Includes studio debate with Professor
Vivian Moses and Mark Griffiths - repeated Monday 4.30]

Sunday, 16 June, - Bitter Harvest - BBC 2 TV
"The science and controversy of GM food go under the microscope in
a BBC 2 series" (no time yet specified, but this looks like being the first
in a series of programmes)